The separation of the legal state from its foundations in Iran's constitutional movement

The Constitutional Movement in Iran stands as a transformative chapter in our nation's history, leaving a lasting imprint even in contemporary times. Its primary objective was to replace an authoritarian regime with a constitutional monarchy, culminating in the successful establishment of a constitution. The crafted constitution aimed to lay down the essential legal groundwork for a parliamentary government, rooted in fundamental democratic principles. A comparative analysis with other constitutional movements in Europe of the same era reveals a pronounced alignment with the ideals of the German constitutional movement. The hallmark of the Iranian movement lies in curtailing absolute political power, particularly that of the monarch, shaping a dominant feature of limiting the executive branch.



Our exploration into this realm initiates with the acknowledgment of constitutional thinkers' perspectives on the "legal state," its constituent elements, and their embodiment within the constitutional framework and its subsequent amendments. Through this investigation, it becomes apparent that the concept of the "legal state" lacks a unified interpretation among Constitutional Movement intellectuals. Consequently, the architects of the constitutional constitution and its amendments may not have fully succeeded in institutionalizing the principles of a legal government, attributed to diverse factors. Furthermore, from a theoretical standpoint, the achievement of crucial indicators witnesses a discernible departure from foundational principles.